Resources

Workplace Psychological Claims – BC Supreme Court Narrows the “Labour Relations Exclusion”

On March 6, 2025, the BC Supreme Court released an important and lengthy decision regarding workplace psychological claims. This trial decision addresses the second part of James Pickering’s action for benefits under the Workers Compensation Act, R.S.B.C. 2019, c. 1 [WCA].  The first part of this proceeding, indexed as Pickering v. School District No. 38 (Richmond), 2021 BCSC 1497, was a judicial review of a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal (“WCAT”).

At trial, Mr. Pickering argued that two provisions of the WCA infringe his rights under s. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11 [Charter]. He said that those provisions, in combination, led to the denial of his mental disorder claim for workers’ compensation. In short, he argued that his claim was denied for reasons that are discriminatory.

Read More +

Employee Barred from Construction Site Deemed Constructively Dismissed

A complicated issue arises in employment law when an employer provides services to a customer and one of the employer’s employees is prohibited from working due to the customer’s requirements.

The recent decision of Kurik v. CAS Ventures Ltd., 2024 BCSC 1862 reviews this issue and provides some insight for employers.

Read More +

“Move” with Caution – A Reminder to Local Elected Councils and Boards of the Complexities of Censure and Sanction Motions

The decision of the BC Supreme Court in Paull v. Quesnel (City), 2025 BCSC 347 adds to the growing line of cases regarding censure and sanction of local government councils and boards. It provides a cautionary reminder to elected council and board members of the complexities of a motion of censure and the process to be followed. It also highlights the importance of giving respondents due process and the required procedural fairness.

Read More +

Privacy Versus Public Interest: Anonymity at the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal

In the case of Ng v. City of Vancouver (No. 2), 2024 BCHRT 228, Giana Ng filed a complaint with the Tribunal and alleged discrimination on the basis of mental disability in the course of her employment.

She applied under Rule 5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure to limit the publication of her personal identifying information in any written Tribunal decision and also to redact her personal information from any part of her file that could be made available to the public.

The City of Vancouver (the “City”) opposed the application.  It argued that Ng’s privacy interests did not outweigh the public interest in the Tribunal’s proceedings.

Read More +

Can Employers Eliminate Employee Hours Indefinitely Due to Business Demands? B.C. Supreme Court Says “No”

The B.C. Supreme Court recently released a decision in a class proceeding involving past employees of a major hotel operated by Ocean Pacific Hotels Ltd. (“Ocean Pacific”).

The common issues in this proceeding were certified by Justice Matthews in Escobar v. Ocean Pacific Ltd., 2024 BCSC 1575.

This article examines only the central common issue before the Court – whether Ocean Pacific constructively dismissed the class members by eliminating their hours indefinitely in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Read More +

Watching Out For Privacy: Limitations on Employer Video Surveillance

In Rehn Enterprises Ltd. v. United Steelworkers, Local 1-1937, 2024 CanLII 72130 (de Aguayo), Arbitrator Jacquie de Aguayo found numerous privacy and procedural breaches related to the installation of video surveillance in work vehicles.

Read More +

Employer Dismisses Pregnant Employee Based on Facebook Post: Ontario Human Rights Tribunal Awards $37,849 to Complainant

In Iskander v. 2363327 Ontario Incorporated and Primeau, 2024 HRTO 1122, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal allowed a complaint alleging prohibited discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, including pregnancy and sexual harassment.  The complainant, Kristina Iskander, testified that she believed she was dismissed from employment because she was pregnant.  The Tribunal found the respondents to have breached the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990 c. H. 19 (the “Code”) and awarded $37,849 to the complainant.

Read More +

Think Twice Before You Hit “Send”: Your E-Mail Job Offer Could Be Binding

In the recent case of Adams v. Thinkific Labs Inc., 2024 BCSC 1129, the B.C. Supreme Court considered whether a certain e-mail communication constituted an employment contract at common law.  The Court relied on basic doctrines under the law of contract such as the need for consideration to find that the e-mail offer created a binding agreement.

Read More +

The Complexities of Dependent Contractors and Restrictive Covenants

In the recent decision of Dibble v. Creative Music Therapy Solutions Inc., 2024 BCSC 1066, the B.C. Supreme Court provided a helpful reminder that a long-term contract with a worker can result in the worker being categorized as a “dependent contractor” who is entitled to reasonable notice on termination of the contract.  The Court also provided a reminder that a restrictive covenant is held to a high threshold to be enforceable.

Read More +

Grasping at Straws: Claiming Discrimination in the Face of Clear Misconduct

In Bartender v. Finale Entertainment Inc., 2024 BCHRT 155, the complainant, a former bartender with the respondent nightclub, filed a human rights complaint after his employment was terminated without cause.

The complainant, who identified as Caucasian or white, alleged that his employment was terminated in order to hire a Chinese employee.  To support his allegation of discrimination, the complainant relied on the fact that, on the same day the respondent terminated his employment, a Chinese worker started working in his place.

Read More +